Podcasts —

Ars Technicast, Episode 15: Read any Darwin lately?

Why isn't Origin of Species more widely read?

Why is it that so many people have not read Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species? This seminal work of scientific literature has been one of the most influential and hotly debated works of the modern age, but many people have never even read it. In this episode of the Ars Technicast, Editor in Chief Ken Fisher and Senior Science Editor John Timmer join Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng and Social Editor Cesar Torres in a discussion about Darwin’s book. In this episode we talk about how the book has been incorporated into academia and the merits of Darwin's writing style, as well as possible ways in which it could be discussed as a piece of literature.

Promoted Comments

This was the first ebook I acquired for my iPad. I'm very glad I read what I did, but I could not finish it. Even though my English proficiency is considered graduate level, I eventually found it to be a slow and tedious read. But it didn't start out that way.

The initial chapters are wonderfully dense with well-articulated, important ideas fundamental to a true understanding of the theory of evolution. I still well recall encountering one particular sentence in his introduction that I realized dismissed quite easily the central tenet held by what we now know as intelligent design. His anticipation of that line of reasoning and literally shooting it down in his introduction demonstrated to me the extreme care he had taken in formulating his arguments.

However, by about 2/3 through the book, Darwin's style subtly changes and his writing became too difficult for me to enjoy reading further. Perhaps it was due to his focus changing to the more arcane points of his argument, or perhaps he took less care to have each sentence's meaning well-defined - I don't know. I just know that the joy of encountering his carefully worded, well-defined, wide-ranging ideas was gone, and I felt that I was then swimming in minutia. And since I was reading his book for pleasure, I eventually stopped.

So, my recommendation is this: if you're curious at all, get the book and read as much as you like - you will learn from it no matter how much you get through. And if for any reason you need to read all of the book, plan on tedium similar to that of holding court in a well-constructed castle by the end.

I enjoyed Origin of Species, but I'm a biologist with a love of history. I would say, though, that I don't think Darwin's work is obsolete or that you get a better idea from a textbook. Use the textbook as a primer, sure, but the theory isn't independent of the mind(s) that came up with it - it's great to read Darwin's reasoning in his own words (warts and all), for the same reason you'd read the original paper for a more recent scientific development.

For more modern reads in the same field, I've enjoyed Edward O. Wilson more than Dawkins, but that's partly because he's coming from an ecology background rather than from genetics. There's also some good second-hand takes on Darwin, such as "Darwin and the Barnacle" by Rebecca Stott, for people who don't take to Victorian prose, or who still want more having read Origin.

7 posts | registered Sep 12, 2012

Cesar Torres
Cesar is the Social Editor at Ars Technica. His areas of expertise are in online communities, human-computer interaction, usability, and e-reader technology. Cesar lives in New York City. Emailcesar.torres@arstechnica.com//Twitter@Urraca

76 Reader Comments

This was the first ebook I acquired for my iPad. I'm very glad I read what I did, but I could not finish it. Even though my English proficiency is considered graduate level, I eventually found it to be a slow and tedious read. But it didn't start out that way.

The initial chapters are wonderfully dense with well-articulated, important ideas fundamental to a true understanding of the theory of evolution. I still well recall encountering one particular sentence in his introduction that I realized dismissed quite easily the central tenet held by what we now know as intelligent design. His anticipation of that line of reasoning and literally shooting it down in his introduction demonstrated to me the extreme care he had taken in formulating his arguments.

However, by about 2/3 through the book, Darwin's style subtly changes and his writing became too difficult for me to enjoy reading further. Perhaps it was due to his focus changing to the more arcane points of his argument, or perhaps he took less care to have each sentence's meaning well-defined - I don't know. I just know that the joy of encountering his carefully worded, well-defined, wide-ranging ideas was gone, and I felt that I was then swimming in minutia. And since I was reading his book for pleasure, I eventually stopped.

So, my recommendation is this: if you're curious at all, get the book and read as much as you like - you will learn from it no matter how much you get through. And if for any reason you need to read all of the book, plan on tedium similar to that of holding court in a well-constructed castle by the end.

There's a similar issue with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. He is considered the father of capitalism - but difference between today's rhetoric of "capitalism this, capitalism that" versus what he actually pronounced in the book is worlds apart.

I wouldn't be surprised if some right wingers would call Adam Smith socialist in these current times.

Even if you don't read the rest of the book, do read Chapter 1. It's a great introduction.

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable”

Or my personal favourite.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

But I can't blame people for not reading On the Origin of Species, Wealth of Nations, The Divine Comedy, The Leviathan, On War or any of the other old books I've tried, and usually failed, to read. It's a real grind trying to read a book for an audience that spoke and thought differently than we do now. That's part of the reason for reading them in the first place, but it just consumes so much mental energy.

I can't blame them unless they name an institute after the author that the author himself would think was full of crap. I'm looking at you Adam Smith Institute. Them I can blame. Heartily.

Why isn't it more commonly read? Because its a boring read. The scientific principles it brings forward are mostly the foundation of evolutionary science today, but damn the book is boring.

Gotta disagree there. If you are interested in the *history* of evolution then Darwin is an informing read. It's of very little value for scientific information as his theory bears little resemblance to current evolutionary theory.

That's not really true. The fundamental principles behind it are still the same; he just had no mechanism for how the actual changes to organisms happened.

You confuse the fact of evolution with the process. It really hasn't been show how the eye evolved via a Darwinian process. There are various hypothesized scenarios.

No scientist is perfect. I do feel that Mendel was more ethical than Darwin. But just my opinion.

Let's leave behind the eye analogy for something else; say, for example, the beak of a Galapagos ground finch. During drought years, such as 1982, less vegetation grows on the island, which means fewer nuts and seeds for the finches to eat, and average nut size increases. During this time span, researchers found that the birds that survived the drought cycle tended to be larger and had larger beaks.

During normal years, researchers found that as the supply of food increased, there was less competitive pressure on the finch population and the average ground finch size (and beak size) tended to return to pre-drought levels.

Before you go spouting off about the lack of evidence for the evolution of complex organs, it might be a good idea to read some actual work in the field. You know, just so you don't look like a complete cretin.

This is semi off-topic so feel free to skip my post, but I feel the need to voice this thought.

Whenever I see one of these discussions about evolution, I feel like I'm from another planet.I'm German and throughout my whole life - up until I hit the vastness of the interwebs - never did anyone as much as hint at the thought, that the theory of evolution might be wrong. I went from elementary through high school to university and evolution was seen by everyone as as much a known thing as the fact that the earth is a sphere instead of a flat disc.And that's not because of some sort of "believe" but simply because it is a working theory, just like all the other scientific theories that work and that we use day in day out to make our lives better.

You might understand my confusion when I hit the web and discovered, that there are people out there, who deem themselves educated and still - in this time and age - do doubt this fundamental theory. And in one of the most advanced nations nonetheless.

I guess, after years of exposure to this ... phenomenon, I should be accustomed to it. But I'm still flabbergasted whenever it comes up and I read posts, denying outright the very same theory that everyone at home has already accepted as a fact of life.(Actually, I have since seen similar posts in German internet discussions. So maybe it was just my social circle, or - which I sincerely hope is not the case - those deniers get more influence on our side of the pond.)

Oh, and as for Darwin's book. I've never read it either. I think I will, but it seems a bit like reading a book about basic algebra. I don't expect to learn anything really new from it.

Why is it that so many people have not read Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species?

Maybe some people accept Darwin's conclusions because the people they trust the most told them that he was correct and for all practical purposes it may be enough for. I have the nagging suspicion that due to the same reason most politicians have never the Constitution. It would be unforgivable but that's my suspicion.

I have read OOS and didn't find it a bit boring. On the contrary. My only complaint is that Darwin was too respectful with the Church (yeah, yeah, I know, but still).

Mmm well yes Kuhn was very influential, but not even close to the same level as Darwin. The Origin was an incredibly powerful explanatory theory for the diversity of all life around us, a runaway best-seller and a subject of massive (and still continuing) debate at a time when the reading public was highly unified and interested in scientific theories. Books are still published explaining and exploring natural selection today, and natural selection itself retains its original Darwinian definition, both in scientific usage and pretty much in popular usage as well.

Kuhn's book on the other hand was a pretty esoteric work on the nature of how scientists work and how scientific knowledge progresses, that did indeed have a large impact within academic circles, but as far as I am aware didn't make much of a splash beyond that. The phrase 'paradigm shift' has caught on, yes, but it caught on by cultural osmosis, not by searing itself into public consciousness, and anyway has largely lost most of its real Kuhnian dimensions and now is little more than a stock phrase used by people with no idea of its origins. Nowadays The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is little read or heard about outside of a small number of people interested in the philosophy of science. Compared to the Origin its explanatory power is low (not to say it isn't an interesting or insightful book in its own right, but the Origin is a weapon of mass illumination with some serious megatonnage.)

Mmm well yes Kuhn was very influential, but not even close to the same level as Darwin. The Origin was an incredibly powerful explanatory theory for the diversity of all life around us, a runaway best-seller and a subject of massive (and still continuing) debate at a time when the reading public was highly unified and interested in scientific theories. Books are still published explaining and exploring natural selection today, and natural selection itself retains its original Darwinian definition, both in scientific usage and pretty much in popular usage as well.

Kuhn's book on the other hand was a pretty esoteric work on the nature of how scientists work and how scientific knowledge progresses, that did indeed have a large impact within academic circles, but as far as I am aware didn't make much of a splash beyond that. The phrase 'paradigm shift' has caught on, yes, but it caught on by cultural osmosis, not by searing itself into public consciousness, and anyway has largely lost most of its real Kuhnian dimensions and now is little more than a stock phrase used by people with no idea of its origins. Nowadays The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is little read or heard about outside of a small number of people interested in the philosophy of science. Compared to the Origin its explanatory power is low (not to say it isn't an interesting or insightful book in its own right, but the Origin is a weapon of mass illumination with some serious megatonnage.)

Hardly anybody reads Newton's "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica" anymore either, not that they should. There are far more better reads availeable about principles of biology and physics.

I'm biologist myself and haven't read the Origins. Tried once. Its boring as hell. Interesting as far as history of science is concerned, but I actually hope that the general public ignores it and picks up instead The selfish gene by Dawkins, or pretty much any other contemporary popularization of evolutionary theory.

How many people discussing and using it as an argument have actually read the Bible ?How many people supporting or opposing its ideas have actually read Marx's Capital ?

The reason is simple, humans are a lazy, self-satisfied, ignorant and above all, intellectually dishonest bunch.

In our defence, in many cases what they've learnt through sheer osmosis (the basic ideas and values so permeating our culture) is usually sufficient, even though it gives us a false sense of knowledge and understanding.

As a biologist, I'd say that Dawkins's "The selfish gene" is a better read and more important. The principles of Darwins work are mostly common knowledge now, while Dawkins's work is not.

A good read, still!

Oh please. The Selfish Gene hypothesis is just stupid. Genes don't want anything, and they are definitely not selfish. You can explain everything in a way that fits you thanks to this 'theory.'

Nobody claims that genes want anything.

You obviously have not read The Selfish Gene at all. Well maybe the title. Like most of it's critics make assumptions based on the title alone. Don't worry, there's plenty of people around like you. Even Dawkins himself has started to regret the name. Too many idiots around making all sorts of claims solely based on the title.

I think Climbing Mount Improbable may be a better way to get people onto the power (and limitations) of evolution. What it is and isn't, how it does and doesn't work.*edit* Oh, and Carl Zimmer's At the Water's Edge is a great way to examine evolution with the framing device of how fish turned into land animals, and then millions of years later how land animals moved back into the sea.

To be a little tongue-in-cheek, I would be worried if Darwin were more widely read.

I understand what you're getting at. Antiquated science is not the most valuable use of most people's time. But in the US at least there is a strong undercurrent to society which has insulated people even from Darwin's science. There are those who don't understand what "survival of the fittest" means in a Darwinian context. Political and religious forces have conspired to give many an understanding of evolution (and science in general) that was obsolete before Origin of Species went to press. Notice how AZDave has been misinformed about what the book actually says, and couldn't tell you how it was supposedly flawed as a work even in its own time, versus Mendel's work which he held up as an example of more rigorous contemporary science.

I could go along with a reading of a generous selection of OOS. But creationist types can be surprising. They'll thoroughly familiarize themselves with a work just so they can (pretend to) debunk it. They'll have stock answers to difficulties. I bet you they could do the same if OOS began to be more widely read.

That may make me sound pretty cynical, but I don't believe things are completely hopeless. It will definitely take a multi-pronged approach. Perhaps reading excerpts of OOS could be one tool.

In my community college biology class, I had a better understanding of the origin of life and evolution as separate theories than did my classmates. In our discussions on the topic I led the class around by the nose.

I've known a number of people claim because of creationist books they've been able to "lead the class around by the nose" and in actuality the people they were "leading around by the nose" were unable to argue back because they didn't understand the subject and the creationist was simply talking rubbish but using long words. You basically don't seem any different given you were arguing with a bunch of students at a community collage.

I'd actually be interested to hear what these books are because to date I've never heard or read a creationist argument/book/text that wasn't full of rubbish, bad science and lack of understanding (fudged over with long words to fool people like yourself into thinking you know something). Please understand I'm not trying to insult you.

Because it is very old, and an awkward read for a modern audience? And you want to understand evolution, Dawkins or Gould would be better reads. I mean yes, it was influential and if you're a biologist or any sort of scientist that works with evolutionary theory you should probably read it, but for the public? I'd rather stick them down with something more current and readable.

To be a little tongue-in-cheek, I would be worried if Darwin were more widely read.

I understand what you're getting at. Antiquated science is not the most valuable use of most people's time. But in the US at least there is a strong undercurrent to society which has insulated people even from Darwin's science. There are those who don't understand what "survival of the fittest" means in a Darwinian context. Political and religious forces have conspired to give many an understanding of evolution (and science in general) that was obsolete before Origin of Species went to press. Notice how AZDave has been misinformed about what the book actually says, and couldn't tell you how it was supposedly flawed as a work even in its own time, versus Mendel's work which he held up as an example of more rigorous contemporary science.

I could go along with a reading of a generous selection of OOS. But creationist types can be surprising. They'll thoroughly familiarize themselves with a work just so they can (pretend to) debunk it. They'll have stock answers to difficulties. I bet you they could do the same if OOS began to be more widely read.

That may make me sound pretty cynical, but I don't believe things are completely hopeless. It will definitely take a multi-pronged approach. Perhaps reading excerpts of OOS could be one tool.

Actually, we see that sort of behaviour all the time in Climate Change threads.

And you're right, that's what would happen. "Proof-texting" -- the tactic of quoting some snippet(s) of scripture as a supposedly unassailable support or counter to some argument (meaning and context be damned) -- is a firmly-established practice in fundamentalist-leaning circles. It's actually a very traditional approach, much used to support doctrine and proselytize "unbelievers".

To be a little tongue-in-cheek, I would be worried if Darwin were more widely read.

I understand what you're getting at. Antiquated science is not the most valuable use of most people's time. But in the US at least there is a strong undercurrent to society which has insulated people even from Darwin's science. There are those who don't understand what "survival of the fittest" means in a Darwinian context. Political and religious forces have conspired to give many an understanding of evolution (and science in general) that was obsolete before Origin of Species went to press. Notice how AZDave has been misinformed about what the book actually says, and couldn't tell you how it was supposedly flawed as a work even in its own time, versus Mendel's work which he held up as an example of more rigorous contemporary science.

I could go along with a reading of a generous selection of OOS. But creationist types can be surprising. They'll thoroughly familiarize themselves with a work just so they can (pretend to) debunk it. They'll have stock answers to difficulties. I bet you they could do the same if OOS began to be more widely read.

That may make me sound pretty cynical, but I don't believe things are completely hopeless. It will definitely take a multi-pronged approach. Perhaps reading excerpts of OOS could be one tool.

Actually, we see that sort of behaviour all the time in Climate Change threads.

And you're right, that's what would happen. "Proof-texting" -- the tactic of quoting some snippet(s) of scripture as a supposedly unassailable support or counter to some argument (meaning and context be damned) -- is a firmly-established practice in fundamentalist-leaning circles. It's actually a very traditional approach, much used to support doctrine and proselytize "unbelievers".

Before anyone gets all huffed up because of religion, I feel compelled to remind the four of you that we have had Christians in history who were persecuted because of the way fundamentalists processed and pushed their own doctrine...Galileo Galilee proved the Earth was not the center of the universe.

I'd argue that reading On the Origin of Species would be more beneficial to the average American, because the author wrote it without intending on any level to alter the core philosophical/religious beliefs of his readers, much less by being overly blunt in a way no audience even slightly hostile to the ideas presented is going to accept.

I haven't read darwin's stuff, but i think that in the history behind origin's numerous controversies is also that it rocked the boat of "the blue bloods". I'm not sure when exactly this changed, but for a long period, the upper classes in england certainly held themselves as superiorly different people to the peasants, that's why they were the aristocracy, and the peasentry were where they were.

How this rocked the boat, is that the theory claimed that all people are derived from the same evolutionary path (at least that's what i think, i suppose it's possible that seperate lines have independantly evolved, the same way), and therefore, there's nothing special about the aristocracy.

In many tribes, there has been some sort of extra form of justification of why the leaders are leaders, that's why numerous groups would proclaim their leader as a god-king, or like in britain, and i'm sure in other european countries, they were given the divine right, and the classes had some mythical fable providing justification beyond being able to exert their influence through force.

And if you want a modern example of this, just look at north korea, i think that kim jong un actually, by now, believes all this cult of personality being constructed by his forebears and those supporting, all the made up superpowers, maybe less so, but in order to make their leadership useful, by maintaining some sort of social order, this whole construct is made to provide some sort of justification of why certain people rule over others.

Now i may be mistaken with my chronology, but, this is one of the things, i perceive, that darwin may have disturbed, the blue bloods would have seen this as material potentially empowering the plebs, amongst other things as well, and throughout the history of britain, there has been instances of class antipathy from the upper classes to the lower classes.

Before anyone gets all huffed up because of religion, I feel compelled to remind the four of you that we have had Christians in history who were persecuted because of the way fundamentalists processed and pushed their own doctrine...Galileo Galilee proved the Earth was not the center of the universe.

At least in my case, you are reading more into what I wrote than was intended.

Christians, including Christian priests and monastics, have made great contributions to the progress of science. 35 craters of the moon are named after Jesuits, for one. I would even argue that the Franciscans (Scotus, Ockham, and of course Roger Bacon) provided the philosophical tools that made it possible to do modern science. Newton of course was a devout Christian, though, since he was an Arian, most Christian apologists probably would rather not focus too much on that. Much more could be said about this subject.

Anyway, the target of my comments has been not Christians but creationists (the vast majority of whom are Christian).

sf4f: Yes except by the time of Darwin, science was paid for and protected by the Royals and aristocrats almost exclusively.. When you don't have TV's or Movies, a bit of "magic" can go along way. Never mind the competition between the English French and Germans with regards to natural philosophy.

Why isn't it more commonly read? Because its a boring read. The scientific principles it brings forward are mostly the foundation of evolutionary science today, but damn the book is boring.

Gotta disagree there. If you are interested in the *history* of evolution then Darwin is an informing read. It's of very little value for scientific information as his theory bears little resemblance to current evolutionary theory.

I wish people would stop saying Evolution when they really mean Darwin's origin of species theory. They are different things. Evolution is simply change over time in response to external pressures in any given system organic and non-organic. Evolution isn't about one species becoming another. Darwin tries to explain how we came to have the amazing amount of biodiversity our planet enjoys. Darwin's theory deals with Speciation not simple evolution. He tried to explain speciation in terms of evolution. One can accept the fact of evolution and still question Darwin.

Quite sad that some refuse to read "Origin Of Species" because really all it implies is that we all adapt to our environment over time.

There are a lot of interesting things hardly anybody really knows about Charles Darwin and his works (Though admittedly It would be less enjoyable to read it on my iPod than it would on a tablet).

Darwin was studying to become an ordained minister when he wrote "Origin Of Species". The trip to the Galopicos Islands (sorry, bad speller with terrible Autocorrect) changed his career in a flash.

What I find sadder is that many people can't seem to separate the fact of Evolution from Darwin's Origin of Species theory. I blame the piss poor science education found in our public schools. I had the same misconception until I had my first college Bio class where the professor understood this and make it crystal clear to us that Darwin's theory was about speciation. That Darwin tried to explain his idea that one species can become another (speciation) through Evolution. While everyone in the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact not everyone agrees that speciation is a proven fact. why? Because there isn't a single definition of species and so far there isn't a universally accepted example of speciation in the lab. Problems have been found with every example presented so far. So you can accept the reality of Evolution and still question Darwin's theory of the origin of species (Speciation).

I wish people would stop saying Evolution when they really mean Darwin's origin of species theory. They are different things. Evolution is simply change over time in response to external pressures in any given system organic and non-organic. Evolution isn't about one species becoming another.

Evolution is exactly how new species arise, though. The technical term is "speciation," but that's universally understood to be an evolutionary process. Darwin's explanation for the origin of species was one of the first rigorously refined mechanisms for the broader theory of evolution (and the other, Lamarckism, hasn't stood the test of time).

Quote:

Darwin tries to explain how we came to have the amazing amount of biodiversity our planet enjoys. Darwin's theory deals with Speciation not simple evolution. He tried to explain speciation in terms of evolution. One can accept the fact of evolution and still question Darwin.

Not really. Natural selection works. It's a fact. We see it in action. Darwin's explanation isn't the only way that evolution works (and I don't think he ever claimed it was), but it is indisputable that it does work and does give rise to new species. It wouldn't make any more sense to be skeptical of Darwin's natural selection than it would to be skeptical of photosynthesis.

g0m3r619 wrote:

What I find sadder is that many people can't seem to separate the fact of Evolution from Darwin's Origin of Species theory. I blame the piss poor science education found in our public schools. I had the same misconception until I had my first college Bio class where the professor understood this and make it crystal clear to us that Darwin's theory was about speciation. That Darwin tried to explain his idea that one species can become another (speciation) through Evolution. While everyone in the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact not everyone agrees that speciation is a proven fact.

I really enjoyed the cast, many of the concepts you discussed have been rattling around in my head for a while and I'm very glad to see that I am not the only one thinking about these issues. In particular I enjoyed the mention of the media being a driving force in pushing for "simplicity" which is in fact leading to straw man arguments and I lack of understanding and context in general (29:40 in the cast).

I think this is a symptom of a greater issue especially in the US but worldwide as well. You touched on this when you mentioned the recent elections, there seems to be this need to drive everything to a black or white answer, a yes or no but most issues especially the more complex ones cannot be drilled down to a yes or no, there are always shades of grey. So the "yes's" and "no's" that come out end up both being incorrect but because they are a yes no black or white position they are perpetuated by the media.

Something that Ars has spoken on before, which I also think links quite directly into this discussion, is the general lack of understanding around scientific process and methods.

While I have a pretty solid grounding in Darwin's work and even his life, I have also not actually read the origin of the species and it was never required or even really encouraged in school or university. Feeling perhaps the same kind of shame you mentioned, a few months ago I actually made an effort to find the book (now in public domain http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009) and have started reading it.

(I am South African and evolution is taught very comprehensively at school)

I wish people would stop saying Evolution when they really mean Darwin's origin of species theory. They are different things. Evolution is simply change over time in response to external pressures in any given system organic and non-organic. Evolution isn't about one species becoming another.

Evolution is exactly how new species arise, though. The technical term is "speciation," but that's universally understood to be an evolutionary process. Darwin's explanation for the origin of species was one of the first rigorously refined mechanisms for the broader theory of evolution (and the other, Lamarckism, hasn't stood the test of time).

Quote:

Darwin tries to explain how we came to have the amazing amount of biodiversity our planet enjoys. Darwin's theory deals with Speciation not simple evolution. He tried to explain speciation in terms of evolution. One can accept the fact of evolution and still question Darwin.

Not really. Natural selection works. It's a fact. We see it in action. Darwin's explanation isn't the only way that evolution works (and I don't think he ever claimed it was), but it is indisputable that it does work and does give rise to new species. It wouldn't make any more sense to be skeptical of Darwin's natural selection than it would to be skeptical of photosynthesis.

g0m3r619 wrote:

What I find sadder is that many people can't seem to separate the fact of Evolution from Darwin's Origin of Species theory. I blame the piss poor science education found in our public schools. I had the same misconception until I had my first college Bio class where the professor understood this and make it crystal clear to us that Darwin's theory was about speciation. That Darwin tried to explain his idea that one species can become another (speciation) through Evolution. While everyone in the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact not everyone agrees that speciation is a proven fact.

Wrong. Every single example of speciation int he lab presented is found to be suspect. Do some more research. I've been looking into this for decades. Also if you bothered to actually look deeper into this you'd find one of the biggest reasons why there hasn't been a single agreed upon example of speciation is because there isn't a single agreed upon definition of species. Your examples are NOT conclusive. they are all in question because no one agrees on what constitutes a new species.

Some people merely shift the goalposts, others yank them about wildly, without any apparent awareness that they just aren't playing the same game as the rest of the world -- a game in which the object is to move the ball, and to move it in some particular direction, according to clearly defined rules.

Wrong. Every single example of speciation int he lab presented is found to be suspect. ... Your examples are NOT conclusive. they are all in question because no one agrees on what constitutes a new species.

How many of those did you read? Some of the links explain the different species definitions and provide examples that apply to each.

Quote:

Also if you bothered to actually look deeper into this you'd find one of the biggest reasons why there hasn't been a single agreed upon example of speciation is because there isn't a single agreed upon definition of species.

Its your turn to provide a source to back up your claim. I expect a link explaining this situation with references to the scientific literature.

Suggestion: On the Geneology of Morals. Something from the humanities that requires to be read with an open mind. A book that people love to hate and walk away from, a book that, I think, gives the strongest critique of modernity and everything that has followed-- without telling the reader what it all means or what to think. Which is the point. A polarizing and misunderstood work by a polarizing and misunderstood mind that has stuck around by making a handful of serious thinkers fall in love with it. Also popular with teenage intellectuals struggling to assert their individuality (in the same vein as Atlas Shrugged), sometimes derided for this. Well worth reading for anyone who likes wandering off the beaten path of the intellectual tradition.

Before anyone gets all huffed up because of religion, I feel compelled to remind the four of you that we have had Christians in history who were persecuted because of the way fundamentalists processed and pushed their own doctrine...Galileo Galilee proved the Earth was not the center of the universe.

To be entirely fair, part of the reason that Galileo was persecuted was because he insulted the Pope.

As for who deserves credit for "proving" it, it is arguable. While Galileo was the first to observe the moons of Jupiter, people before him had noticed that it was pretty obvious that the Earth went around the Sun - Copernicus obviously, but others as well had noticed it made the math actually make sense.

Quote:

What I find sadder is that many people can't seem to separate the fact of Evolution from Darwin's Origin of Species theory. I blame the piss poor science education found in our public schools. I had the same misconception until I had my first college Bio class where the professor understood this and make it crystal clear to us that Darwin's theory was about speciation. That Darwin tried to explain his idea that one species can become another (speciation) through Evolution. While everyone in the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact not everyone agrees that speciation is a proven fact. why? Because there isn't a single definition of species and so far there isn't a universally accepted example of speciation in the lab. Problems have been found with every example presented so far. So you can accept the reality of Evolution and still question Darwin's theory of the origin of species (Speciation).

This isn't actually true, and your bio teacher taught you incorrectly. Speciation is a consequence of Darwin's theory, but Darwin's theory is actually about the change of creatures over time. The idea that it is all about speciation is wrong; natural selection and sexual selection are both well accepted nowadays.

It is also worth noting that speciation is well-accepted; the conflict is not really over whether or not species exist, but what the word "species" actually means, and to what extent it is meaningful as a label. That doesn't mean species aren't important concepts.

And we have observed speciation in the lab. There have been fruit fly experiments that have created species unable to interbreed with each other, and while some don't like that species concept (which is justifiable) it is certainly -a- valid definition of one and it has been proven that it does occur. Heck, we know it occurs with humans, as humans can't interbreed with anything - and knowing humans, this has been empirically tested.

Quote:

While I have a pretty solid grounding in Darwin's work and even his life, I have also not actually read the origin of the species and it was never required or even really encouraged in school or university. Feeling perhaps the same kind of shame you mentioned, a few months ago I actually made an effort to find the book (now in public domain http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009) and have started reading it.

I read it a long time ago, but honestly, it really isn't that important to read it. I also agree with the other posters that the Selfish Gene is in many ways more interesting (and it is certainly more accessibly written).

Quote:

Wrong. Every single example of speciation int he lab presented is found to be suspect. Do some more research. I've been looking into this for decades. Also if you bothered to actually look deeper into this you'd find one of the biggest reasons why there hasn't been a single agreed upon example of speciation is because there isn't a single agreed upon definition of species. Your examples are NOT conclusive. they are all in question because no one agrees on what constitutes a new species.

Biologists bicker over species definition because no one definition actually does what they "want it to". Species is really a shorthand for a genetically distinctive population group which seldom interbreeds with other groups and thus remains quite pure. The problem with the defintions are:

1) Many things which are "obviously" different species can interbreed. Dogs, for instance, can be crossed with not only various types of wolves but also with coyotes, even though Coyotes and Grey Wolves and Red Wolves are all distinct "species".

2) Many things which are incapable of breeding at all - a species which does not use sexual reproduction, like many viruses and bacteria, thereby don't interbreed at all, and yet we use "species" to describe them.

3) Some single-celled organisms can swap genes, which isn't really analogous to anything in the multicelluar world, and sometimes they don't even do it with the same "species" as we know them.

Basically, species is a label which exists for convenience. Speciation certainly occurs, and we have observed it both in the lab and in the world at large (again, see humans and our propensity to stick it in things we shouldn't), but a lot of biologists spend a lot of time worrying about what the label means exactly, when it is really just a construct we use to better organize the world. Once you understand it as such, the bickering really seems a bit pedantic.

However, the argument that speciation does not occur just isn't something that the scientific community has; it certainly DOES. The fact that they fight over what "species" means doesn't change that fact. Scientists feel very confident in saying that humans and chimps are different species, for instance.

What I find sadder is that many people can't seem to separate the fact of Evolution from Darwin's Origin of Species theory. I blame the piss poor science education found in our public schools. I had the same misconception until I had my first college Bio class where the professor understood this and make it crystal clear to us that Darwin's theory was about speciation. That Darwin tried to explain his idea that one species can become another (speciation) through Evolution. While everyone in the scientific community agrees that evolution is a fact not everyone agrees that speciation is a proven fact. why? Because there isn't a single definition of species and so far there isn't a universally accepted example of speciation in the lab. Problems have been found with every example presented so far. So you can accept the reality of Evolution and still question Darwin's theory of the origin of species (Speciation).

This isn't actually true, and your bio teacher taught you incorrectly. Speciation is a consequence of Darwin's theory, but Darwin's theory is actually about the change of creatures over time. The idea that it is all about speciation is wrong; natural selection and sexual selection are both well accepted nowadays.

It is also worth noting that speciation is well-accepted; the conflict is not really over whether or not species exist, but what the word "species" actually means, and to what extent it is meaningful as a label. That doesn't mean species aren't important concepts

Quote:

Quote:

Wrong. Every single example of speciation int he lab presented is found to be suspect. Do some more research. I've been looking into this for decades. Also if you bothered to actually look deeper into this you'd find one of the biggest reasons why there hasn't been a single agreed upon example of speciation is because there isn't a single agreed upon definition of species. Your examples are NOT conclusive. they are all in question because no one agrees on what constitutes a new species.

Biologists bicker over species definition because no one definition actually does what they "want it to". Species is really a shorthand for a genetically distinctive population group which seldom interbreeds with other groups and thus remains quite pure. The problem with the defintions are:

1) Many things which are "obviously" different species can interbreed. Dogs, for instance, can be crossed with not only various types of wolves but also with coyotes, even though Coyotes and Grey Wolves and Red Wolves are all distinct "species".

2) Many things which are incapable of breeding at all - a species which does not use sexual reproduction, like many viruses and bacteria, thereby don't interbreed at all, and yet we use "species" to describe them.

3) Some single-celled organisms can swap genes, which isn't really analogous to anything in the multicelluar world, and sometimes they don't even do it with the same "species" as we know them.

Basically, species is a label which exists for convenience. Speciation certainly occurs, and we have observed it both in the lab and in the world at large (again, see humans and our propensity to stick it in things we shouldn't), but a lot of biologists spend a lot of time worrying about what the label means exactly, when it is really just a construct we use to better organize the world. Once you understand it as such, the bickering really seems a bit pedantic.

However, the argument that speciation does not occur just isn't something that the scientific community has; it certainly DOES. The fact that they fight over what "species" means doesn't change that fact. Scientists feel very confident in saying that humans and chimps are different species, for instance.

One could reasonably say that the argument is less about "what" a species is, than about "where/how we draw the lines" between different species.

One excellent example of this "species problem" is "Ring Speciation", ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species ), an observed evolutionary phenomenon that points out how arbitrary the theoretical distinction of species, and the theoretical definition of "species" can be , in the complexities and complications of a messy reality. But then, we can say the same thing about love, honour, truth, or even more concrete notions like nation, river, etc -- and we don't proceed to dismiss those concepts because they're difficult to define, either.

Ring species are actually an excellent demonstration of the process of speciation. They're a perfect natural example of a species diverging from itself because of geography driving different degrees of reproductive isolation between the different populations.

I've known a number of people claim because of creationist books they've been able to "lead the class around by the nose" and in actuality the people they were "leading around by the nose" were unable to argue back because they didn't understand the subject and the creationist was simply talking rubbish but using long words. You basically don't seem any different given you were arguing with a bunch of students at a community collage.

I'd actually be interested to hear what these books are because to date I've never heard or read a creationist argument/book/text that wasn't full of rubbish, bad science and lack of understanding (fudged over with long words to fool people like yourself into thinking you know something). Please understand I'm not trying to insult you.

(Bold added where parallelism needed to be second and third person respectively to safely put that in the realm of not being patently offensive.)

Looks like I'm late to reply. My creationist biology home school curriculum was from Bob Jones University. I believe I snipped this from my other post - my history curriculum for the American revolution consisted of a Native American text, a public schools text, a British text, a French text, and other supplemental curriculum. My science curriculum wasn't memorable barring the creationist text.

Now-a-days, my university grades generally round up to 100% more often than they round down to 90%, usually because I get bored. I.E. my most recent programming assignment (in a class I'm taking for fun) fulfills the assignment requirements five times over.

You can trust that when I say I led the class by the nose, I'm under-exaggerating because at a point it looks like one's looking down their nose at people like yourself who fail to even thinly veil an insult - please understand though...